Things that drive a Director crazy ! ... by Harry Falk
THINGS THAT DRIVE ...
It's been almost 6 years since I first worked as part of a
team with many terrific fellow directors, met lots of nice people, traveled to
many interesting places, and gotten a great perspective of the world of bridge.
But, along the way, I've discovered there are a few things that bug me while I'm
doing my job. I'm a healthy guy, and I'm not much of a drinker (maybe one six
pack of beer and a couple of bottles of wine during an entire year), but these
little things that happen at tournaments might give me an ulcer or drive me to
drink. Here are a few examples.
SELLING ENTRIES
Ladies: Please Don't Put Your Purse down on Top of My Selling
Sign! When you you arrive at the front of the line to buy your entry, please
have your money ready. Don't fumble for the money at the selling table and
please don't cover up the sign which lists the stratification and the entry fee.
When I'm selling entries and a lady covers up my sign, I just want to stand up
and scream!
And, while we're on the subject of selling we only need one member of each
partnership or team in the line please collect the money from your mates before
you enter the line.
STARTING THE GAME
When the director announces that we're ready to get started,
I could pull out my hair (which is starting to fall out at warp speed anyway)
when, 5 minutes after placing boards and hand records on a table, players
haven't even suited the cards or made up the hands. It's only common courtesy
that you do the work required of you. Discuss your conventions or the current
state of world affairs after you've made up the boards. And, making a few boards
isn't particularly difficult you just need to be a bit organized when you do it.
There's no reason for a table to be late and make the other tables wait for them
to finish duplicating.
One other thing when the director announces the starting
instructions, please pay special attention to the size of the section it's a
handy thing to know so that when you've finished playing at Table 15 in a 15
table section, it will be a long wait for the opponents at table 16 to return
from their break! Ok I've gotten a few things off my chest now I feel so much
better. I'll have a few more of my pet peeves next time that it's my turn to
write the column. In the meantime, have fun at the table, and please help me
keep the hair
that I've got now don't make me pull out anymore.
The Director Discusses: Anatomy of a Ruling by Harry Falk
Many times a director will be
called upon to make a ruling after an instance of misinformation, unauthorized
information,
failure to properly alert, or some other irregularity at the table. With this
month's column, I'll try to shed some light on how a
director makes a proper ruling.
In a recent club game, I was called to the table after the
dummy hit the table in the following auction:
| N | E | S | W |
1 |
Pass | 3 |
Pass |
| Pass | Pass |
The declaring side had agreed to play Bergen raises, so
double raises show 0-6 points and at least 4 trump. Opener had not
alerted partner's bid, and responder did not inform the opponents of the failure
to alert prior to the opening lead as required by
the laws. The player in 4th seat told me when the dummy came down that she
didn't bid because she thought that this was a limit
raise showing 10-12 points. She had 13 points, and she figured opener for at
least 13 points, so she figured there was little left
for partner. She stated that if she knew that the 3 bid was weak, she would
have taken action to enter the auction.
When I examined the hand, it was clear to me that the failure
to alert had damaged the other side, so I knew I had to adjust
the score. But how should I score it? Do I award an average plus to the
non-offenders and an average minus to the offenders?
Or is there a way to award an actual score?
The answer to this comes in the form of Law 12C2 which states
that the non-offending side shall receive the most favorable
result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. When I reviewed the
hand, it was clear that once West took action
on the hand at the 4 level, partner, with a good 11 count and 2 aces , would
certainly bid a minor suit game and could take
11 tricks. I therefore adjusted the E-W score to +400.
In the case of the offending side, the Law awards the most
unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores for the offending side and the non-offenders need not balance. In this case, I ruled
-400 was indeed the most unfavorable score, so the
scores did balance.
Many club directors do not fully understand the procedure
necessary to make such a ruling, but it's really not that difficult.
You should try to determine what would have happened had the violation not
occurred and rule on that basis. Yes, it takes a few
extra minutes but your time and effort will be appreciated by your players. One
way to handle this is to ask for an opinion of
some more experienced players who might have already played the board.
Experience will often give the director another view
of a hand and help him make a more intelligent ruling.
I hope I've given you a bit of insight into a complicated
subject ... and if you have a subject you would like me to cover in a
future column, please email me at harryfalk@msn.com.